About your Search

20121222
20121230
STATION
MSNBCW 6
CSPAN 5
CNNW 3
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
] >> my highlight? it is telling again for newt gingrich. he in a subsequent debate when we was asked about extramarital life and enough about these questions and made the media successfully a target of his ire. >> jon: on the republican side, jim, it is often the case that the media go after republican candidates? >> right and that is why gingrich was so effective in pivoting off, for example, juan, the real issue of the debates is never what perry said to herman cain, it's what they said to the public. gingrich showed awareness. the people on the stage are small poe at a time's compared to the audience. for example, on the on the other side, ryan debate against biden, he dance today the questions and never once did he turn to the audience hearing shear more media bias. the audience would have loved it independents would have agree that the media are biased against republicans. >> jon: all those debates, did they illuminate the process the presidential campaign? >> i think they did. first of all they were catnip for reporters. there were thousands of reporters. it was amazing that an
gingrich and bill clinton got together to reach an agreement it was very controversial. newt gingrich said -- this is october 20, 1998. "i will say to each and every member of this house, unless they have a plan they think can get 218 votes over here, can pass through a filibuster in the senate, and get signed, there is no responsible vote except yes." america expects its congress to get to yes. we are prepared to work with the speaker and with the republican leadership. we all need to be willing to work with the president of united states to get to yes, for our country and for our constituents. now, and want to yield to my very dear friend, the assistant leader of the democratic caucus, my friend jim clyburn, from south carolina. >> think you very much, representative hoyer. last year, when the tea party republicans stymied the efforts of the deficit reduction committee that we called "the supercommittee," we said at the time that it would take a definitive election to decide the matter. november 6, the american people spoke. the american people spoke very clearly, and i think decisively.
the teleprompter. newt gingrich. he said the republican party right now could not beat hillary clinton in 2016, but we're hearing the beginnings of the efforts to discredit her as a potential candidate. newt gingrich weighing in on hillary clinton. what about that one? >> is this going to come at the end of his second term with a moon colony? you know. newt gingrich coming to hillary clinton's defense, i suppose we shouldn't be surprised. i'm still going to have a head-wrenching moment because wasn't he the guy who had something to do with impeachment? it's nice that he's gone back to his olympian position of musing on the state of politics. he couldn't really predict his own politics in his own primary very well. it's true that people might try and throw rocks at her. i just think stepping out of the washington fray means that she doesn't need to deal with this right now. so in terms of her own position, it's not like she's a nominee. she has to deal with congress. she doesn't even -- she managed to dodge the whole situation on benghazi pretty well for herself. you know, the tougher questions
like newt gingrich who says the epa, get rid of the epa. these are job creators, regulators, how do you confront republicans like newt gingrich who put that out there by saying i don't think that should exist. >> you know, moms across the country are speaking up right now saying we need stronger stands for soot. the results were overwhelming. we did a proposed rule to deal with greenhouse gases from new power plant. we got three million comments largely in favor. so i think it's easy to say, think right now the american people rightfully want their government to be efficient. they don't want it to waste money. they want to know that they're getting something when you have a regulatory agency, we should regulate smartly. we shouldn't be oppressive. we should be smart about it but we shouldn't go away. >> how do you attract businesses and private money and investment in private investment and the environment. >> i've been doing this almost 23 years we need certainty. we want to invest our money, but we want to know the rules aren't going to challenge. if carbon's the bag thing, that i'm n
. >> you know, thing is something to that culturally. the irony to that of course is newt gingrich initiated this revolution in which he changed the culture to be very deferential to the leader. all of the sudden the house leadership was controlling who was the committee. he took the power out of the committee chairs and centralized it in the speakers -- in the minority leader's offices and the speaker's offices. and all of that really did change the way the entire house worked to make it more like the nancy pelosi house that we saw in the congress before it was taken over by boehner. >> salute and you do what you're told. >> party line votes. if you need to deliver the votes, you can. now it's coming apart there is no road map or diagram or architect in place for what the next iteration of what the house culture looks like from a parliamentary perspective. >> there is no -- one of the things that i think is most important about that is that there is no credibility that can be held by any member of the house that would give them sway over other members of the house on the republic
the roots of that? >> i think i can. i arrived here in 1979. one of my classmates was newt gingrich. early on, he took on as his target, the speaker jim wright. that was the beginning of the rigid of some of this polarization. there is low -- the beginning of some of this polarization. it was a better time. since those last couple of decades, the institution has suffered from too much partisanship. >> before mr. gingrich, i would imagine he would argue the republican house members have spent decades in the wilderness and he was the one that found a way to bring them into the majority in the house. how do you balance the pluses and minuses? >> there is not any question that that effort to paint a picture of jim wright's service laid the foundation for a majority. that was a healthy thing. i do not believe it was a good -- we have been in that for far too long. appropriations committees work is where either you spend money or you do not. ideally, you are here to work with one another to be as responsive as possible to your own constituents and taxpayers. within the committee itself, the more
gingrich taking on the host of that debate. republicans never lose when they take on the media. but i think what republicans ought to do, the next time around is not to fall into this template that allows these liberal hosts to question them, often from a negative and liberal perspective and start demanding they have at least one conservative on a panel. i would like to see a panel, for example, with at least one conservative like a rush limbaugh, sean hannity, mark levine to even things out a little bit and challenge the democrat in the general election in ways that they don't. we had other stories that were big media stories in 2012. you remember the unfortunate shooting in aurora, colorado, where abc's brian ross, went on the air and looked up in the phone book and found a name that matched the alleged shooter and concluded, gee, he must be part of the tea party. this is the kind of stuff that passes for sober analysis with the mainstream media. there are many others but those two stand out in my mind immediately. jon: christie, your favorites of the year? >> well it is not a surprise i
refused to release his tax returns allowing newt gingrich to take south carolina. >> we proved here in south carolina that people of power beats big money. >> reporter: but that big money eventually cleared the field and romney set his sights on the president. >> it's still about the economy and we're not stupid. >> reporter: at number nine, bain. not that one. that one. almost as soon as romney had had locked up the nomination, his former private investment capital was crashed by the super pac and obama campaign. the attack ads put romney on defense for months. the president also got a lip fr lift from the supreme court. romney vowed to strike it down himself. >> i'm not one that's going to get rid of obama care. >> reporter: at number seven, gas. >> governor romney, do you feel that your gas has overshadowed your foreign trips? >> reporter: or in romney's case, his entire foreign trip where a campaign aide lashed out at reporters. a gaffe that went global. and then at number sick, the conventions were remembered less for the nominees and their running plates and more for -- >> wha
people. when he put so much money into the new gingrich effort and then into the matter on the effort -- -- into the mitt romney effort and he did not win in either case and he was not alone. there were other people. both sides spent more than $1 billion. can you imagine? we are in the middle of a fiscal crisis and on the political campaign, this or reaffirmed the status quo with republicans in charge of the house and democrats in charge of the senate and obama as president -- we spent $2 billion? really? did we simply boost local television advertising rates? i don't know but it is a good question. what does all this money by you? host: a story i saw a said he would do it again. he insinuated that he was inclined to do it again. guest: i guess he will double down. he is a guy who wants a return on his dollar and is trying to influence things. his big interests seems to be u.s. relations with israel. do i think he shifted or help to ed. i don't think he helped. host: independent line, go ahead caller: good morning. this is just to you, juan. i have seen you put yourself on the line a
together the way ronald reagan and tip o'neill did, the way clinton did with bob dole, and newt gingrich. there is a long history of this. it means people getting into a room and preventing what we all want to prevent, and if we share the same goal, there should be a way for us to reach it. i am sorry that the house yesterday was unable to pass that the resolution, which was obviously a rebuke to their leader, but hopefully over their recess, when the come back after christmas, there will be cooler heads prevail in, and the president will begin serious negotiations. thanks. >> he looked at the house and senate reaction to the attack on the u.s. consulate. you also look at the accountability review board on how the state department handled the matter. today's at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the issues, a different times the government can punish them as a result of the moral condemnation. the answer is once. >> c-span radio is featuring supreme court oral arguments before they were on the bench. all this week at 7:00 p.m. eastern. it to watch this in the baltimore area. >> on wed. pres
provide services to me. >> reporter: he refused to release his tax returns, allowing newt gingrich to take south carolina. >> we proved here in south carolina we beat big money. >> reporter: but that big money eventually cleared the field and romney set his sights on the president. >> it's still about the economy. and we're not stupid. >> reporter: at number nine, bang. >> your punishment must be more severe. >> reporter: not that one, that one. almost as soon as mitt romney locked up the nomination, bane capital was savaged by democratic superpacs and the obama campaign. >> like a vampire. sucking the life out of us. >> reporter: the attack ads put romney on defense for months. >> there's nothing wrong with being associated with bane capital for months. >> reporter: the president also got a lift from the supreme court which at number eight upheld his embattled health care law, so romney vowed to strike it down himself. >> i'm that one that's going to get rid of obama care. >> reporter: number seven, gas. >> governor romney, do you feel your gaffes have overshadowed your trip? >> reporter:
things worked, right? >> absolutely not, gregg. president clinton and newt gingrich, the then speaker, despite their very real differences were talking all the time. i think at one point they spent a total of almost 35 hours in total together. bottom line, there was always a sense of national purpose that i think is missing here, gregg. bottom line on both side i think there's a lot to be accounted for. gregg: you know, terry, let me put up on the board what this means to the average american. all right. 300 bucks if you're the lowest taxpayer, there you are but you're talking about if you make 40 to 50,000, $1700. go to the next page. look at this. i mean you're talking about folks who make, you could be in new york a firefighter and a teacher and you're making within that range of 200 to 500,000. you're talking about 13,000, $14,000 in increased taxes. there is the last page. 500,000, $34,000. do you think people really appreciate what's about to happen to them? >> i think they appreciate that the american political system is talking all about raising taxes and not nearly enough abo
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)